Terry Eugene Bethel v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 27th District Court of Bell County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-92-450-CR
TERRY EUGENE BETHEL,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 41,384, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

The district court found appellant guilty of burglary of a building and assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten years. Tex. Penal Code Ann. 30.02 (West 1989).

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing a contention that counsel says might arguably support the appeal. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

In his arguable point of error, counsel urges that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the conviction. The evidence shows that shortly after midnight on May 5, 1992, Killeen police officer Steven Parker was called to the scene of a burglary. The plate glass window of an appliance store at 215 Avenue C had been smashed with a rock and a television set had been taken from the window display. A few minutes after the officer arrived at the scene, appellant approached him riding a bicycle. Appellant told the officer that, on 2nd Street near the railroad tracks, he had seen a Mexican man wearing a red shirt and carrying a television set. Appellant rode away without giving Parker his name.

Parker encountered appellant a second time when he began to drive around the area looking for the suspect. Appellant was standing by his bicycle, stuffing a jacket into a duffel bag. Appellant agreed to get in the officer's patrol car and take him to the location where he saw the Mexican man. Appellant took the officer to the corner of College Street and Avenue G, three blocks from the spot where he had originally claimed to have seen the man. Appellant also told the officer that he had been at the bus station at the corner of 2nd Street and Avenue C when he heard the sound of glass breaking at the appliance store. Believing that appellant was claiming to be in two places at once, the officer began to suspect that appellant was the man who broke into the appliance store.

Parker returned appellant to his bicycle. With appellant's permission, the officer looked inside the duffel bag and found a television set. This set was shown to be the one taken in the burglary. Appellant told the officer that the television had been given to him by a transvestite on Root Avenue.

In determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, the question is whether, after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). We hold that from the testimony in this cause, the district court could rationally find that appellant intentionally entered a building not then open to the public and therein committed theft.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

[Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith]

Affirmed

Filed: December 23, 1992

[Do Not Publish]